In a recent statement, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed concern regarding the court's increasing reliance on its emergency docket, often referred to as the 'shadow docket.' Jackson argued that the frequent use of these expedited rulings imposes significant 'institutional costs' on the judiciary. She questioned the fairness of the process, specifically highlighting the disparity between parties who receive immediate attention from the high court and those who must follow the standard, lengthy appellate process.

Jackson’s comments reflect a growing internal debate among the justices regarding how the court handles urgent requests for relief. While the emergency docket is intended for time-sensitive matters where immediate intervention is necessary to prevent irreparable harm, critics—including Jackson—suggest it has become a tool for deciding complex legal issues without the benefit of full briefing, oral arguments, or transparent deliberation. By bypassing these traditional steps, Jackson suggests the court risks appearing as though it is granting preferential treatment to specific litigants. Her remarks serve as a formal pushback against the current trend of issuing summary orders that lack the detailed legal reasoning typically associated with the court’s merits docket. While other justices have previously defended the necessity of the emergency docket for maintaining order and addressing urgent constitutional questions, Jackson’s intervention highlights a deepening divide over the court's procedural transparency and its role in the American legal system.